Summary: there was no fault in the conduct of officers who dealt with Ms X’s request to make a new homelessness application. We did not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the action taken by officers in Children’s Social Care when they were assessing her children’s needs.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about unprofessional conduct and poor customer service by Council officers who handled her request for homelessness assistance.
2. In particular, she complains that officers:
• ended telephone calls when she was trying to book an appointment;
• walked away while she was speaking to them in the office;
• kept her waiting until 8:00pm in the office;
• tossed a letter at her.
3. Ms X also complains about the actions and conduct of officers in Children’s Social Care when they were assessing her children’s needs to decide if they owed them a duty under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. In particular, Ms X complains that officers made an unannounced visit to her and contacted her son’s school and her parents without her consent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Ms X and considered all the evidence she sent me, including her video recordings of some telephone calls and meetings she had with Council officers.
7. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and its records of contact between officers and Ms X during the relevant period.
8. I have written to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The background to this complaint

9. Ms X and her two children are homeless.
10. There is a complex history to this complaint. I have set out a brief summary of key events to provide the context for this complaint. But this investigation is about the conduct of Council officers, not the substance of decisions on Ms X’s homelessness applications. The Ombudsman has previously investigated complaints from Ms X about these matters and the actions of Council B.
11. In February 2016 Barnet Council decided Ms X was intentionally homeless. Ms X requested a review of this decision but it was upheld in May 2016.
12. In April 2017 the Barnet Family and Children’s Services team secured accommodation for Ms X and her children in a flat out of London. This was intended to be short-term temporary accommodation to give Ms X time to make other arrangements. It was provided to meet the Council’s duty to assist “children in need” under the Children Act 1989.
13. Barnet Council gave Ms X notice to quit the flat. As she did not leave, it then started legal proceedings to evict her.
14. In August 2018, when she was threatened with homelessness, Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council in the area where she was then living – I shall call it “Council B”. Council B accepted the prevention duty. It arranged for Ms X and her children to stay in a bed and breakfast hotel from October 2018 when they were evicted from the flat. Council B owed Ms X the relief duty when she became homeless. Ms X left the bed and breakfast accommodation provided by Council B and went to stay in a hotel in the same area which she found herself.
15. In April 2019 Ms X withdrew her homelessness application to Council B and returned to Barnet. She asked Barnet to take a new homelessness application. The Council decided it did not have to take an application because there were no new facts since it made the 2016 homelessness decision.

Ms X’s contact with officers

16. Barnet Homes is an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) which was set up by Barnet Council to manage the Council’s housing stock. It also provides a range of other housing services, including housing advice and homelessness assessments, through its Housing Options service.
17. Ms X is dissatisfied with the conduct of named officers at Barnet Homes with whom she had contact between April and June 2019.

The handling of Ms X’s telephone calls – April 2019

18. Ms X says every time she called Barnet Homes officers terminated the call. She says they did not give her any information or offer any explanation.
19. The Council’s case notes record that Ms X made at least four telephone calls to Barnet Homes on 18 April asking it to take a new homelessness application.
20. She also attended Barnet Homes on 18 April and spoke to an officer from the telephone in the reception area.
21. The Council had contacted Council B who said it was still assessing Ms X’s homelessness application. Officers at Barnet Homes advised Ms X to contact Council B.
22. The Council’s notes confirm that an officer terminated two telephone calls with Ms X on 18 April. He said Council B was still dealing with her application and Barnet would need to see Council B’s decision.
23. On 18 April a manager in Barnet Homes gave Ms X a letter which set out the Council’s position. It said:
• Barnet Homes would not accept a new housing application because it had already found Ms X was intentionally homeless and there had been no “material change in her circumstances” since that decision was made;
• Council B is still investigating her homelessness application;
• She should return to Council B so it could complete its assessment;
• Barnet Homes was willing to give Ms X a travel warrant so she could return to Council B’s area.
24. On 23 April 2019 Ms X asked Council B to close her homelessness application.
25. According to Barnet’s records, Ms X made four calls to Barnet Homes on 25 April. She spoke to three different officers. They all told Ms X the Council could not assist her.
26. On 26 April Council B sent Ms X a letter confirming it had ended the relief duty because she had withdrawn her homelessness application. Ms X then contacted Barnet Homes again.
27. Ms X sent me a recording of a call she made to Barnet Homes on 26 April. It appears she did not tell the officer she was recording the call. She asked to speak to the duty manager. The officer told Ms X she should not keep calling because she had already been given information. On the recording Ms X says this was her third call to the officer that day. The officer ended the call.
28. The Council does not routinely record telephone calls made to Barnet Homes. So it could not provide any recordings. It sent me the case notes for this period. They include an entry made by an officer after he ended a call with Ms X on 26 April. He said Ms X had already called three times that day despite being given a letter on 18 April which explained why Barnet Homes could not assist her or take a new application. It says Ms X kept calling and was abusive and rude. The note says Ms X would not let the officer to speak and kept talking over him.

Officers walked away while she was speaking to them in the Barnet Homes office and an officer tossed a letter at her

29. Ms X sent me two video recordings she made on her mobile phone while she was in the Barnet Homes office.
30. One recording shows Ms X speaking to a female officer. It is not clear when this arhappened. The officer was speaking to Ms X and noticed Ms X seemed to be recording the conversation. Ms X confirmed that she was. The officer then ended the conversation and walked away.
31. Ms X also made a video recording of a conversation she had with a manager at Barnet Homes on 4 June 2019. It shows him trying to hand her a letter but she refused to take it. The letter confirmed that Barnet Homes would not take an application because there were no relevant new facts since the decision on her previous application.
32. Ms X says the manager then tossed the letter at her and her children and walked away. Ms X is upset because she says this behaviour is disrespectful and unprofessional.
33. Barnet Homes considered this allegation when Ms X made a complaint about the manager’s conduct. The investigating officer spoke to the manager who said he had put the letter in the child’s pushchair because Ms X refused to take it.
34. Ms X’s video recording captures the manager trying to hand the letter to Ms X. It shows he walked away when she refused to accept it. But the recording does not show what he then did with the letter. Ms X has suggested the Council’s CCTV footage would show what happened. She also said the Council could have sent the letter by email rather than tossing it at her. She says this has happened more than once.
35. When a senior manager in Barnet Homes investigated this part of Ms X’s complaint, she partly upheld it. She spoke to the officer who told her he had left the letter on the pushchair to ensure Ms X had it. She said this was not ideal and fell below expected standards. When she replied to the complaint, she apologised to Ms X for any offence this had caused.

Ms X was kept waiting in the office until 8:00pm

36. Ms X complains that she and her children were kept waiting until long after the office closed on four days when she visited the Barnet Homes office in April 2019.
37. Barnet Homes says it does not have records of the times Ms X left their office. So it cannot confirm or deny that she was kept waiting for so long.

Analysis

38. Ms X and her two children were still homeless when she returned to Barnet in April 2019 to try to get further housing assistance. Clearly she was under severe stress.
39. The evidence I have seen shows that Barnet Homes explained to Ms X in clear terms why it would not take a new homelessness application. It gave her advice on other options to help her secure private rented accommodation. It gave written reasons in the letter of 18 April. Understandably, Ms X was frustrated and disappointed by the contents of this letter.
40. After receiving this letter, Ms X made several calls to officers at Barnet Homes in April. I have listened to the recordings Ms X sent me but not she did not record all the calls. The evidence from Ms X’s recordings and the Council’s case notes confirms that she called officers repeatedly on some days. I understand Ms X was desperate for assistance. But it was not fault for officers to end the calls when they had nothing to add to the written advice she had already been given. Officers deal with many cases and they must provide a service to all customers. They cannot do this effectively if their time and resources are taken up dealing with repeated contacts from one customer.
41. Ms X and the manager gave conflicting accounts of what happened on 4 June. Ms X says the manager tossed the letter at her: he says he placed it in the pushchair. Ms X’s video recording does not show what happened at this point in their exchange. The manager who replied to Ms X’s Stage One complaint partly upheld this complaint. She apologised to Ms X for any offence caused. As the Council has already offered an apology, I do not consider further investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve any more for Ms X.
42. Ms X’s video recordings show two officers walked away while she was speaking to them in the Barnet Homes office. On one occasion, the officer left when Ms X refused to take a letter. On another occasion, an officer ended her conversation with Ms X when she discovered Ms X was recording it. Ms X considers the officers were rude and unprofessional. But, given the context and circumstances, I do not find fault.
43. There is insufficient evidence that Ms X was kept waiting for an unreasonably long time when she visited the Barnet Homes office. The Council cannot provide any relevant records to confirm how long she waited. If Ms X attended the office without an appointment, she would have had to wait because the service is busy. Although I am sure it was inconvenient and frustrating to have to wait to be seen, that was not due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed the investigation and found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. After considering the Council’s final response to Ms X’s complaint about Children’s Social Care, I have decided not to carry out any further investigation of this part of the complaint.
46. The Council sent Ms X a comprehensive response to her complaint. It explained the reasons for making these enquiries in the context of the legal duty under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add any more to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman